4 ms·
You mean the one who recently published this: Curry JA, 2014: Climate science: Uncertain temperature trends. Nature Geoscience, 7, 83-84. (http://www.nature.c
by tjradcliffe 11y ago
You mean the one who recently published this: Curry JA, 2014: Climate science: Uncertain temperature trends. Nature Geoscience, 7, 83-84. (http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v7/n2/full/ngeo2078.html http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v7/n2/full/ngeo2078.html)
Weird how a "quack" manages to get her work into top-tier peer-reviewed journals, isn't it.
When one side of an argument descends to ad hominem as their first move, it is a sure sign their side has lost the argument.
Unfortunately, ACC is likely real and deserves a strong policy response. People like you, who admit to having no actual argument for their position, are actively damaging the cause of science and good policy.
- Daishiman 11y agoYeah, that one, versus the other 97% of other climate scientists who complain that her work is BS and that she has purposely misinterpreted the findings and conclusions of the IPCC reports. Your idea that this is an ad hominem is intellectually dishonest. Curry has been criticized by the vast, vast majority of climate scientists for her outrageous and ignorant interpolation of other climate data. Finally, there is nothing "weird" about people who are quacks publishing things on Nature. Nature is not the end-all of scientific publications, and it's not by any means a specialty publication in the field of climate science.